From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 11:33:53 +0100
If you wish to register I-SIL-nnn as a standard for three-letter
Ethnologue-based tags, or even want to push for updating RFC 1766 to
include S-nnn as a new category, I would not argue against that, but
I would like to stick to the principle of using ISO standards for
the basic namespace.
Since IANA does not otherwise use such a principle I don't know why you
would adopt it here, let alone insist on it.
Otherwise, we will end up with a really confusing situation once the
ISO 3166 three-letter project finishes (if it ever does); its tags are
SURE to conflict with the SIL tag.
Even more incongruent does your "principle" appear given the laggardness
of this particular ISO work item. It is extremely unlikely that ISO or
anyone else for that matter will do as comprehensive a job as SIL has done
in creating their language database.
I was rather surprised to learn that you did not even know about the
Ethnologue database prior to writing your RFC. Let's just forget about 3166
and use what exists, namely 639 for 2 letter codes and the Ethnologue for
three letter codes. Unless you can give a firm estimate of when (or if)
ISO is going to actually produce a revision to 639, then your objection
surely sounds quite empty to me.
Regards,
Glenn